Sunday, January 04, 2009

Primordial Energy

A comment left on my post about Chemical evolution ask me to comment about where did the initial energy came from for the Big Bang. I could have answered in a reply to his comment but the scope of the answers and the hypothesis I must explain to answer means it deserves a post of it own. I must say before I begin that prereionisation physics is not my field of research and that the ever more complex physics of the plank era (not to mention the “prebig bang physic) is probably beyond my understanding of physics. I will attempt to explain things but it will only be to the limit of my understanding and it could very well prove to be wrong.

Ok, first off do we need initial energy for the Big Bang, many would say yes because of the Law of Conservation of Energy. The problem is that a lot of people incorrectly interpret this law, it is though to mean something like Lavoisier law of conservation of matter: “Energy cannot be created or destroyed”. This is false, the law merely state that energy in a closed system must be conserved, i.e. that the sum of the energy present at any moment in the system remains a constant. I know, it sound like it’s exactly the same thing but it is not. The law of conservation of energy does not preclude the creation of energy provided that exactly the same amount of negative energy is created at the same moment. Up to a 1999 negative energy would get you laugh out of most scientific establishment but astronomer have discovered that such a kind of energy appears to exist in our universe in the form of the cosmological constant which produce an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. You might ask how this constant can be a negative energy, well it imposes a negative curvature on space while every other kind of energy impose a positive curvature on space. It has to be energy of opposite amplitude, i.e. a negative energy.

Now that we know that we can “create” energy, lets look at what could happen in a perfect vacuum, i.e. 0 energy, 0 space, 0 time. (the condition before the Big Bang). Well your 0 energy could spontaneously break into x part positive energy and –x part negative energy without any violation of conservation of energy. Once you have this separation of energy, many things could possibly happen, one of them would be the Big Bang (another would be annihilation of these energy to restore the vacuum state). Is it unlikely that the Big Bang would have occurred, yes and no. Yes because we do not know if a Big Bang event is likely and no because well if this is the explanation of the origin of the Big Bang it happen so the probability of it happening is 1. This hypothesis has at least one problem: the total energy of the universe has to be exactly 0, which doesn’t seem to be the case from our observation. But it does show that you do not absolutely need an energy field to have a Big Bang.

Another way to produce a Big Bang without requiring a preexisting energy would be through “quantum fluctuation”. Once again we must consider a vacuum where you have 0 energy, 0 space, and 0 time, now according to the quantum uncertainty Principe is you know the position exactly you can have “infinite” fluctuation of the momentum. Now, this uncertainty principle can also be used with energy and time. i.e. if you know the time exactly you have no idea of how much energy is involved. This could mean that their exist fluctuation in the vacuum state of energy of unimaginable proportion. Now, one of our theory for the origin of the universe stipulate that the Big Bang is a manifestation of the unwinding of 4 string to “create” the 4 known dimension (i.e. the 3 dimension of space +1 dimension of time). The energy requirement to unwind a string is staggering, as proven by the idea that no other string has begin unwind since the Big Bang. So imagine the situation, we have the vacuum state, fluctuating widely to follow our uncertainty principle one of those fluctuation reach the level of energy require to unwind the strings and Big Bang you get the universe with everything in it, the energy left over from the unwinding becoming the “positive” energy of the universe and causing the creation of matter.

A third way, more mysterious and I’d say esoteric way involve membrane theory. This production of the Big Bang implies that two (or more) multidimensional membranes collide with each other. This collision produces an interference pattern in a few dimensions that is observed by lower order dimensional being as being this universe. I must admit I am not very familiar with Membrane theory and it’s implication and construction (in fact you are close to have been shown the entirety of my understanding of the theory) but from what I know it can produce a Big Bang without an existing energy.

Of course there are hypothesis for the origin of the Big Bang that requires a preexisting energy level and various natural explanation for where this energy field came from (anything from tachyon moving back in time to the moment of the Big Bang to the rest state of vacuum to being a none zero level). Humanity understanding of anything before the reionisation of the universe (the cosmic microwave background) is sketchy because of the difficulty of having any observable. It’s understanding become purely theoretical when you approach the inflation era as the laws of physics start to leave the boundaries we know and understand. And finally it becomes almost purely conjectural when you reach the Plank epoch (before something like 10^-43 s after the Big Bang) when all our knowledge of physics fails. You can imagine what happen when you try to go into the condition before the Big Bang “when” its not even sure that physics works.

However, this can only be seen as an argument for a “god in the gap” i.e. we don’t know so it must be god. There are naturalist possibilities that do not involve supernatural intelligent or its intervention. These possibilities also respect one of the most interesting structures of physic the idea that there should be no discontinuity in the laws of physics. This means that at the boundaries between two laws (i.e. before and after the big Bang for example) the equation explaining both phenomenons must give the same answer. Since by definition god must be a discontinuity in the laws of physics any explanation involving him must be backed by much more evidence that: well we don’t know what does it.

30 comments:

A.K.Satsangi said...

Many views on the Origin of Universe are available. Most popular view is that universe was born with a big-bang from a highly dense energy point. But I have some different view on it. I think the universe was not born from a concentrated point or ball like structure but it has been evolved from an infinite vast expanse of field of gravity. Philosophically or religiously we may call it field of consciousness or spirituality.
A great flow of current of gravitation force descended down from this source and has created many regions of pure gravitation force below it. This was the creation for quite some time in the first phase of the creational process. In the second phase, with a Big-Bang, when the current of gravitation force further descended down then electromagnetic forces and matter (weak and strong nuclear forces)manifested and the entire universe of the second phase was completed with the admixture of all the forces viz., gravitation force, electromagnetic forces, and matter (weak and strong nuclear forces. The completion of the whole cosmos in two phases was also hinted in one of the speeches of Prof. J.V.Narlikar some years back. When the process of creation of universe reverts back the matter merges into electromagnetic force and then finally electromagnetic forces merge into gravitation force and nothing remains except field of gravity. The cycle of universe completes like this.



Anirudh Kumar Satsangi

juliet said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
asaathi said...

Well at first glance I see a problem with a theory that would use gravity as it basic force. Gravity is the weakest of the forces by a very wide marging. Not to mention that such a theory does not explain or account for the cosmological constant i.e. dark energy.

A.K.Satsangi said...

No doubt the gravity is a weak force on our Earth planet but on Sun it is strong and even millions time stronger on black holes and may be many more times stronger beyond it. Kindly think over birth of a star. How it is formed? There is no light at all. By the action of gravitation force towards centre first a protostar forms and then a star is formed which is self-luminous. From where the light has come? It is by the action of gravity all other forces of nature take birth.

asaathi said...

Well a star is formed when cold molecular gaz collaspe into itself until the density and temperature reach a level that allows for the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen. Gravitation has very little to do with the emission of light from a star. In fact if gravitational collaspe was the source of the suns luminosity the sun could last at most 20 millions years.

Now, we are pretty sure that the sun is at least a few billions years old. Gravity cannot explain this kind of time scale.

A.K.Satsangi said...

A tight contracting cluster of atoms held together in the grip of its own gravity, is called a protostar. The protostar is not yet a star and does not emit light. The temperature is also now as low as -173 0 C.

The force of acting on different atoms in the protostar, draws every atom towards the centre of the cloud. The atoms in gas cloud collide with one another more frequently with a much higher speed, thereby raising its temperature from -173 0 C to 107 0 C.

At these extremely high temperatures the protons at the centre of protostar collide together and undergo a nuclear fusion reaction to form helium nuclei. In this reaction a tremendous amount of energy is released. This further raises the temperature and pressure.

The release of nuclear energy marks the birth of the star. The protostar now begins to glow and becomes a star.

Now the question is, what is the cause of this light and nuclear energy etc. ? Obviously, it is the action of gravity only causing the birth and manifestation of all other kinds of forces etc. You are mistaken, Mr. asaathi, I will reply to your above comments in my next post. Thanks.

A.K.Satsang said...

the temperature should be read as --173 degree celsius and 10000000 degree celsius. Inconvenience regretted

asaathi said...

Gravity provide the pressure making the great density and temperature needed for the nuclear fusion possible. Its the same principle as a nuclear bomb, basically you use an external force to reach the critical density and temperature to allow for the much greater release of energy from the reaction your favorising.

The energy and light in the protostar/star comes from this nuclear reaction, the mass of 4 Hydrogen atom is slightly higher then the mass of one Helium atome (because protons are heavier then neutrons). So when you fusion the hydrogen into helium the universe transform some mass into energy. Now if you remember Einstein famous equation: E=mc^2, a little mass translate into a huge amongt of energy.

In fact, so much energy is produced by this fusion that the collaspe of the star (thanks to the gravity) is halted and even most if not all stars are expelling matter in the form of stellar wind. For wind to exist the radiation from the center of the star must be able to overcome the force of gravity, now matter and radiation are lightly bounded. Which mean that an hell of lot of more energy must exist in the radiation of the star than their is in its gravity.

A.K.Satsangi said...

It is evident from the formation of a star that there are two types of forces are acting simultaniously. These two forces are: the force of gravity and the internal pressure developed in the star due to the tremendous amount of energy released during nuclear fusion reactions taking place inside it. These two forces act in the opposite direction. The gravitational force tends to compress the star further whereas the internal pressure tends to stop the gaseous matter from collapsing further. The star is now in delicate equillibrium under these two opposing forces. Our Sun is now in this balanced stage of development. If there were no internal pressure due to the energy (mainly electromagneic, strong and weak forces) of fusion taking place inside the star due to gravitaion, the Sun would have contracted drastically within about half an hour of its birth, under the very strong gravitational forces.

It is evident from the above description, an established fact, that Gravitaiton is the Creator of the Universe, It is the Sustainer of the entire Galactic System i.e.our Cosmos and again It is the Destroyer of the System (Whole or Part as the case may be) when It turns back and merge in the Centre or Source. That's why I have declared the In Scientific Terminology the Source of Gravity is Almightly God.

Thank you for you kind interacion, Mr. asaathi.

asaathi said...

The only reason that gravity appears to be stronger then the other forces in nature is that there is no negatively charged gravity carrier (with the possible exception of dark energy but the dark energy seems only to act at very great distances). To give you an idea how weak gravity is actually is, let me demonstrate the mass of proton you would need to produce the same force as ALL the matter in the star. We will compute this force at 1 AU (the radius of the Earth orbit) but it will be easy to show that it is valid everywhere outside of the sun (it would still be valid inside of the sun except that the mass you would have to consider would be lowered because of Gauss theorem).

For this demonstration I will be using to simplify computation a test mass of 1kg and a test charge of 1C. To see how many proton we need equate the forces of gravity to the electronomagnetic force such that

GMsunMtest/r^2=KQneedeQtest/r^2

with quick math we get the following equation.

GMsun/K=Qneeded

since we know the masse of the sun, and both constant we can find that

Qneeded=1.47x10^10 C

Since 1 proton is 1.602x10^-19 C

we need 9.2178x10^28 protons which translate in a mass of about

Mneeded=154 kg.

So with less then 200 kg of charged matter (BTW the above also hold for electron where you get a Mneeded of 0.83 kg of electron!) you can produce as much force as all the matter in the sun does gravitationally.

Finally while it is true that without the radiative pressure from the nuclear fusion the sun would be much smaller it still would not be a singularity as first electron degenerancy pressure would stop it at about the radius of the Earth. And if through some trick you could get past electron degenerancy their is still neutron degenerancy further down.

One final trick, gravity as god as one big flaw. Dark Energy, how do you explain a force that is accelerating the universe, i.e. pushing ALL that gravity generating matter away from each other, i.e. overcoming the allmighty gravity.

A.K.Satsangi said...

COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF SCIENCE OF RELIGION (THEOLOGY)

I have written following two papers which may lead to the realization for a higher theory of everything:

(i) Gravitation Force is the Ultimate Creator,
(1st Int. Conf. on Revival of Traditional Yoga, Lonavla Yoga Institute, Lonavla, January, 2006)
(ii) In Scientific Terminology, Source of Gravitational Wave is God
(2nd World Congress on Vedic Science, BHU, Varanasi, Feb 2007)
I have presented these two papers at the two different International Conferences. I am now submitting some views for being considered for Unified Field Theory

From Scriptures: (Prem Patra by His Holiness Huzur Maharaj)
The Current which manifested in the beginning of the creation is the Current of Sabda (Sound) and of Chaitanya (Consciousness). From whom that Current issued forth is known as Soami (Supreme Being). This Current, by turning back can merge again in the Holy Feet of Supreme Being. The entire creation manifested from this current and is sustained with its energy and when the Current of the Holy Feet is withdrawn, the creation ceases to exist.This Current of the Holy Feet is the Reservoir of all energy, tastes and pleasures, knowledge, skill, shapes, forces and light etc. etc. and of the entire creation, is also the Creator of all of them.

From Science:
Gravitation Force is the cause of manifestation of the creation (birth of planets, stars), its sustenance and when it is withdrawn towards centre or source the entire creation ceases to exist. Photons have originated from gravitons. In black holes photons merge into gravitons. In Black Holes, Gravitational Force is so high that it does not allow even light to escape. What does it mean then? It simply means that the gravitational force at black-holes attracts light towards it with much greater velocity than the speed of light. In fact, all forces including electromagnetic force, material force (strong and weak nuclear force) all merge into gravitational force in black-holes and becomes one force there and when the creational process starts again from a Black-Hole all the forces appear (manifest) again and descends downwards to create billions of stars, planets, satellite, asteroids and various life forms.

Hence it can be assumed that the Current of Chaitanya (Consciousness) and Gravitational Wave are the two names of the same Supreme Essence (Seed) which has brought forth the entire creation.

All cosmological researches should be conducted keeping in view of the following philosophical facts:
It has been stated in Bible (John I-1) “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”
Mohammedans hold that God uttered ‘Kun’ (i.e. ‘Came into being’) and the creation came into being (Holy Quran, Sur. Bakr (II.117).
In Chhandogya Upanishad it is written “Tadaikshat bahu syam prajayeyeti” (VI-2-iii) i.e. “It thought (desired) Would that I were many! Let me procreate myself!” The Aitareya Upanishad says,”Sa ikshat ‘lokannusrija’ iti (I-1-i) i.e. “He bethought himself (desired) – ‘Let me create worlds’, etc. etc.
It is written in Chapter VII of Srimad Bhagavadgita : Sri Bhagwan said, “Arjun, now listen how with the mind attached to Me and practicing Yoga with absolute dependence on Me, you will know Me in entirety and without any shadow of doubt” (1). I shall unfold to you in its entirety this wisdom alongwith the Knowledge of the qualified aspect of God, having known which nothing else remains yet to be known in this world (2). Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, reason and also ego; these constitute My nature eightfold divided. This indeed is My lower (material) nature : the other than this, by which the whole universe is sustained, know it to be My higher nature in the form of Jiva, O Arjuna. (4-5). Arjuna, know that all beings have evolved from this twofold Prakriti, and that I am the source of the entire creation, and into Me again it disappears.(6)
The Radhasoami Religion also tells that, the ‘Word’ mentioned above is in fact Current of Sound or Current of Consciousness or Prime Current of Spirituality which was issued forth from its Source, or Creator or God. This Current has later on produced light and other forces. The scientists are discussing these days about dark energy which constitute about 96% of the entire universe which is not known to us. Only 4% part of the universe is known to us by all scientific means. In fact this 96% invisible portion of the universe is the vast expanse of spirituality which can be designated as field of gravitational waves in scientific terms. Visible portion of the universe (4%) consists of consciousness (gravitational force), mental force (electromagnetic waves) and material force (strong and weak nuclear force).
Body = Nuclear Force (weak as well as strong)
Mind = Electromagnetic Force.
Consciousness = Gravitation Force.
According to Radhasoami Religion the whole Universe can be sub-divided into three grand divisions viz.
1. Region of Pure Spirituality
2. Region of Subtle Maya
3. Region of Gross Maya
Nuclear forces dominate Region of Gross Maya (Gross Material Region), Electro-magnetic forces dominate Region of Subtle Maya (Subtle Material Region) and Gravitational Force dominates Pure Spiritual Region.
This is the only Truth which can be verified scientifically and can be termed as ‘higher theory for everything’. This also supports the statement of Sir Sahabji Maharaj that ‘the goal of science – Truth; the goal of philosophy – Ultimate Reality; and the goal of religion – God’ are the three names of same supreme essence.
Many things are common between Current of Consciousness and Gravitational Wave.
1. Current of consciousness can not be seen by any means and gravitational wave can also not be seen.
2. Current of consciousness is the weakest force on earth. Its strength goes on increasing on higher regions. Gravitational force is also very weak on earth and strong on Sun and even more stronger on black holes.
3 Tendency of both current of consciousness and gravitational waves are towards their source or centre.
4. Current of consciousness and gravitational force are both regarded as the creater of all the celestial and terrestrial bodies of the whole universe. They are also sustainer of these and when they turn back towards their source or centre the whole universe will collapse.
Hence it can be assumed that the source of current of consciousness and gravitational wave is the same i.e. God or ultimate creator.
This theory is based on scientific deduction. In scientific terms it can be said that the ‘gravitons’ are the elementaryparticle which was issued forth in the beginning of the creation accompanying with sound ‘Radha’
Yoga (Application) which was based on the control of the body physically and implied that a perfect control over the body and the senses led to knowledge of the ultimate reality. A detailed anatomical knowledge of the human body was necessary to the advancement of yoga and therefore those practising yoga had to keep in touch with medical knowledge. (Romila Thapar, A History of India, volume one).

asaathi said...

Holy [expletive censured]

While you claim that this theory is scientific its base relies on false or incomplete information. Graviton do not produce photon, the only link between photon and graviton is simply that both interact with matter and move at the speed of light. Black hole do not attract anything faster then the speed light, the escape velocity for a black hole is equal to or greater then the speed of light which is very different.

There is also no merging of any forces in black hole, in fact black hole have exactly a zero electromagnetic force (given the strenght of the electromagnetic force over the force of gravity the present of any charge on a black hole would be quickly negated by the attraction of an opposite charge), The weak and strong force status are unknown but since both are purely attractive force their is no reason why they would not dominate the force balance within the singularity.

You mention dark energy, yet you do not mention dark matter or the consequences of dark energy on your supposition that gravity is the end all be all of all forces. Also you completly misinterprete it's existance. Dark Energy is a repulsive force, i.e. the exact opposite of the gravitation field.

Finally, scientific papers require scientific fields, Yoga is not a scientific field, Neither is "vedic science". At best yoga can be regarded as a set of excercice that are beneficial to the body. Vedic science can only be regarded as an hinduist equivalent to creationist science.

You are interpreting part of scientific observation (dark energy the explaination for an observed phenomenon) to give validity to religious text. Also you purposely ignore fact that would oppose the theory you are preaching. For exemple the demonstration that gravitational force is 31 ordre of magnitude smaller then the electromagnetic force I posted in my previous comment.

I may sound harsh and dismissive but the theory your are presenting does not fit with obervation. It does not offer any prediction as to what undiscovered thing we could find. It unifies natural concept with supernatural ones without offering any evidence for the supernatural concept. It dismisses part of the observation that does not fit within it's frame work. It use false infromation. In short, while you may see it as science it fails to be one.

A.K.Satsangi said...

It is good that you agree that black holes are zero electromagnetic force body. When the stars convert into a black hole by the action of strong gravity where does the electromagnetic forces end up and in which force. Dark energy is also a mystical concept. We can explain every secret of the Universe with the help of the inner experiences of great Sages, Saints and Seers. You should have no doubt in it.

asaathi said...

Just about every macroscopic object in the universe will demonstrate a net coulomb force of zero. So to answer the question of where it goes in black hole, well it remains constant. It was zero and it is after the collapse zero. You have to remember that the electromagnetic force is so strong that even a kg of charged matter will attract opposite charge with the same force as all the mass in the Sun.

You say Dark Energy is a mystical concept, explain. It absolutly contradict the model of the universe you are proposing.

Actually if I'm reading what you wrote correctly you are explaining the secrets of the Universe with the help of the experiences of the Sages and all. You are using scientific fact and the reinterpreting them to fit with the writing about the inner experiences of the Great Sages. That is a big difference, it means that the writing did not explain anything but you are trying to bend the observation and the interpretation sciences does of them to the writing.

A.K.Satsangi said...

Dark Energy! Although we should not doubt the scientfic findings, but its validity can be argued. It can also be termed as pseudodiscovery as it is said for the discovery of cosmic gravitational radiation originated from the regions near the galactic centre. You may be aware that Weber had reported this in 1970. We may raise many questions, many objections, many doubts. It is very easy. But Truth can be reached by positive approach. Comments are like brainstorming session.Our efforts should be- Synthesis after Analysis of all the Human Knowledge, from where it comes hardly makes any difference. In the International Year of Astronomy 2009 we should work for "gravitational wave astronomy"

We should understand that the goal of Religion-God and goal of Science-Truth are the two names of the same Supreme Essense i.e. Primordial Energy.

Astrogeek said...

You might want to brush up on your knowledge of astrophysics. Dark Energy, does not come from any obervation of cosmics gravitational radiation (whatever that might be) but from observation of distant supernovae. It's discovery occured in 1998 and as been confirmed by observations. You migth want to raise objection but unless you can provide an alternative explaintion for those observation.

You say that: "Our efforts should be- Synthesis after Analysis of all the Human Knowledge, from where it comes hardly makes any difference." I'd like to object to this I can quite you quite a few sources that are not only wrong, but knowingly wrong, other that are plain fantasy and finally some that are weird. Where the knowledge comes from his very important, at very least because we want to be able to replicate the process through which it was acquired to valide it.

Scientist are working all around the world to detail gravitation waves, no experiment has ever been successfull in this (casting slightly doubt on their existance actually).

One last thing to adress that last line of your comment: what about the situation I describe where the primordial energy would be exactly 0, i.e. their is no primordial energy? The universe could still exist, yet would require no Primordial Energy.

A.K.Satsangi said...

ou say Dark Energy has been reported from the observation of distant supernovae. What is the cause of thie supernovae? It is again high Gravitation Force.

Astrogeek said...

If high gravitational force cause supernovae how do you explain the type Ia supernovae? or the models of supermassive star that do not explode into supernovae?

A.K.Satsangi said...

No one can ignore the significance of Gravity. It is believed that the early history of the universe can be described by various "eras" that are based on the particle that predominated during that era. In Planck Era quantum gravity effects dominated. Evidently, whether Gravity or Quantum Gravity alone or with their opposites (anti), it is the original force particle which was issued forth from the Source immediately after the beginning of the universe. Then what is wrong if I say Source of Gravity is 'God' or 'Ultimate Creator'?

Astrogeek said...

Science ignores gravity left and right, most if not all of biology and chemestry ignores gravity in all their theory and models.Gravity is simply not significant at those scale. In fact, the only science that routinely use gravity is astrophysics for it simulation of the unierse. Even in astrophysic as we go back in time we need to consider the other forces as their influence dominate.

Also, in the Plank Epoch, quantum gravity becomes significant, they do not dominate. In fact we are close or we are at the unification of the forces, that means: all the forces had approximatly the same force, not that any one dominated.

What is wrong if you say the source of gravity is 'God' or 'Ultimate Creator'? Well the same thing that is wrong if I say:'The moon is made of cheese'. It rest on false suppositions, it implies ignoring observation, it require interpreting metaphoric text as scientific theory and it doesn't explain anything.

A.K.Satsangi said...

Chemistry and biology! who says ignore gravity? I agree it is not required to repeat the name of 'gravity' every time. The whole study of biology orbits around mainly carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, calcium, potassium, phosphorous, iron elements. What is the cause of their formation and formation of other elements? It is gravity, the original force, only.

Everyone knows that our immediate source is our parents but we don't repeat their names every moment and in every action. This does not mean that we ignore our parents.

Astrogeek said...

No, it not required to repeat the name of gravity every time. But that not what I mean by chemistry and biology ignore gravity is that no model of chemistry or biologie requires the existance of gravity to work. They require the existance of elements for chemestry and molecules for biology but not gravity.

And once again gravity does not cause the formation of the elements, nuclear fusion does. Also, biology does not care about the origin of the elements just their existance. Just like you do not need to calculate the effect of chromodynamics to ride you bike. In fact you can completly ignore chromodynamcis AND still be able to ride your bike.

Finally your parent analogy is completly false, gravity is not like you parent in this case. First because gravity does not produce anything except an attractive force. Second because your analogy implies that because your parent are you source they are responsable and the driving force behind every single of you action and thoughs. And third, if we cannot ignore parents, what about orphans?

A.K.Satsangi said...

asaathi:

Your comments dated Jan. 10

Science and scriptures are the product of our deeper observation. They together make our knowledge complete. They are the two sides of the same coin. Our spirit of enquiry finds its best expression in the text books of science and scriptures. Science tells us about the phenomenal universe that exists in and around the body. Scriptures tell us about our relationship with it. Our genetic material too carries with it the information of millions of years of cosmic evolution. The experimental technique that help us to verify this reality of existence is called by the term Yoga. Yoga is a technique of increasing the depth of our observation.

We are the cosmic ensemble. Try to live and experience the sublime wholeness.

Nuclear fusion in stars is due to gravity. No doubt, Gravity is the parent of all cosmic existence and its Source is Ultimate Creator

Astrogeek said...

Scripture are the product of observation? hmm that the first time I hear about this care to elaborate? Oh and while you are at it what should we do when Scripture is completly, uterly, unquestionably wrong. And the final thing, how what is scripture and non-scripture? who decide one man's fantasy is the produce of "spiritual" inquiry and another is just a story about invisible man in the know if you are being bad or good?

Saying that since gravity produce the pressure and temperature needed to make fusion possible imply that it is the ultimate creator is like saying that since wind move sail boat on the river it is the only only source of mouvement.

It as nothing to do with it not to mention that even if we accept hat gravity is the source of element in the universe it is not the source of hydrogen.

All the hydrogen in the universe was produced just after the Big Bang as the universe cooled down atomic reaction occured that produced an asymetric quantity of matter and energy at a point in time where gravity was a much weaker force then the other 3 elementary force (how much weaker: 10 to the 30th power! that about the difference between the mass of the sun and the mass of a bag of potatoes). It is also produced in environnement that is cooling down the exact opposite of the effect of gravity.

In short, gravity as nothing to do with the existance of hydrogen. Absolutly, positively, surely, observably nothing, nada, nil.

A.K.Satsangi said...

Who says Gravity is the weakest force?

How hydrogen is formed? How cooling started? Which were the forces working for that? There may be unending such questions. They cannot be replied the way you are replying. Do you know how stars and clusters of stars formed out of the interstellar matter? Perhaps you don’t want to accept the reality. Star formation is a continuous process. All theories indicate that stars are formed as a result of large scale gravitational instability developed in the central region of the massive molecular clouds. Instability leads to collapse and breaking into pieces of the original cloud.

The mathematical treatment of the problem of gravitational instability and collapse was first considered by Sir James Jeans 1902. More rigorous works of S.Chandrasekhar, E.N.Parkar and others have established the fact, that the collapse cannot be averted even when gas is subjected to other forces. Evidently no force individually or collectively can overcome gravity at the time of formation of stars.

Our immediate visible God is Sun. Who can deny this? After Big Bang Gravity is the cause of manifestation of whole universe.

Astrogeek said...

Scientist, and I, do, in fact I shown to you on the ninth comment on this post that the electromagnetic force coming from 0.8 kg or electron is equal to the force of gravity produced by 10^30 kg matter. That mean you need a 10^31 increase in kg to produce the same force. Now in case exponent are not your forte, that 100 billion billion billion time weaker then the coulomb force.

Lets go for another example of how weak the force of gravity actually is. Lets see how much mass we would need to overcome to coulomb repulsion between two proton through gravity. to simplify calculation let assume that the force will be applied by two equalisized mass on either side of the proton. So we get

k q^2/r^2=Gm^2/r^2

were k is the coulomb constant, q the charge of a proton, r the distance between the two proton, G the gravitational constant and m the mass pushing.

so we get m^2=kq^2/G

i.e. m=1.85x10^-9kg which is 1.1x10^17 protons to contain 2 protons... doesn't that show you it is weaker?

Hydrogen is formed by a process similliar to pair splitting where in our universe spontaenously, anywhere (even in the deepest of space where gravity is zero) a gamma-ray photon split into a positron and an electron for a split second and then come back as a gamma-ray photon through annihilation.

The cooling starded by the expansion of the superhot gaz, you know the old ideal gaz law: pV=nrT. at a constant pressure if you increase the volume the temperature must decrease, i.e you get cooling.

Yes I do know how stars from out of the interstellar medium and even if you are partly right that star formation occurs in massive molecular clouds and that instability break down into many hot spot that might all become stars. However it does not have to be in the central region of molecular clouds, it happens all however the molecular clouds.

Now, you seem well aware of the works of the early last century theorical scientist. However are you aware of recent work?

The collaspe of protostar is shown to be stoped at least for a while by radiation pressure from the inition of deuterium. Then, it as been observe that the collapse can be halted by blowing the gaz away with, for example a supernova. Also heating the gaz to a few 100 degree also halt the collapse as the cinetic energy of the gaz becomes too great to be capture by the gravitation potential.

I deny that the Sun is anykind of God. I deny it proudly, strongly and without any fear, or any doubt of being wrong.

A.K.Satsangi said...

You are totally mistaken. You are just arguing for the sake of argument only. You are turning your face away from the known facts, Truth. Whom you will say God, I am not able to understand. Can anyone think one's existence on this earth planet without Sun.

Astrogeek said...

Enonciate the known fact I am turning away please?

I say that no one or nothing is god. I'm an atheist, their is no god.

As for for your question, can anyone think of one's existence on this earth planet without the Sun? Well the answer is yes, everything can, human imagination is quite potent you know.

Now to answer the real meaning of your question, life require energy to be able to grow and evolve. On Earth much of that source of energy as been the light from the sun. Such that just about all life on Earth require the Sun's energy in some in it's food supply. Remove that sun's energy supply and well since all life on Earth is depent on it, life dies. However, light from the sun is NOT the only source of energy that life could have use to survive. Their are many other ways a planet could be hospitable to life without even been near a star. Sure, complex life form like humans are unlikely without the huge amount of energy a star can deliver, but once they have evolve on a planet with a ready availlable supply of energy. Sufficiently complex life form to be able to get to another planet, will probably be able to adapt and use other sources of energy.

A.K.Satsangi said...

O.K. please. Things are clear now. You are an atheist, I am a theist. I try to see every aspect of astronomy from the angle of theism. I enjoyed very much the opportunity of interaction with you. I learnt a lot, new ideas and views. I am really grateful for the opportunity you have provided me. Good luck. My very very best wishes to you.

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi said...

Since you have great understanding of mathematics,physics and astrophysic, kindly let me know that in E=mc2 (famous eqs given by Einstein) whether c2 (c square) stands only for denoting some numerical value in the equation or there is some evidence of a speed equal to the square of speed of light?